Burkina Faso’s Bt cotton Reversal Brian Dowd-Uribe University of San Francisco December 2, 2016
Burkina Faso’s Bt cotton Reversal
Brian Dowd-Uribe University of San Francisco December 2, 2016
GM Crops – Needed to help poor farmers
“Europe’s attitude to GM is interpreted as a sign that the technology is dangerous. And this can generate unwarranted resistance to the technology in the parts of the world that most need access to agricultural innovations .” – Owen Patterson, June 20th, 2013
"In a continent that is hungry, the GM debate should be very different. The technology provides one of the best ways to substantially increase agricultural productivity and thus ensure food security to the people...”
Blaise Compaore, Ex-President of Burkina Faso
Outline
• Bt cotton in Burkina Faso • Burkina Faso’s reversal
• Lint quality
• Farmer choice / labor / yields
• Take-aways from Burkina Faso and Bt cotton • Institutions matter
• Private imperative
• Concentration of power
• Issues with GM crop evaluations • Embeddedness
• (Double) counterfactual
• Silver bullet paradox
South Africa, 1998 • Mostly commercial farmers • 600 small-scale Bt cotton
farmers
Bt Cotton in Africa
Burkina Faso, 2008 • Primarily small-scale farmers • ~100,000 Bt cotton farmers; 70% of total cotton production (2013)
Sudan, 2013 • Large-scale commercial farmers
Bt Cotton Timeline in Burkina Faso
2003 2006 2008 2013 2015 2016
Bt cotton field trials
Bt Cotton Timeline in Burkina Faso
2003 2006 2008 2013 2015 2016
Bt cotton field trials
Backcross to local varietals
Bt Cotton Timeline in Burkina Faso
2003 2006 2008 2013 2015 2016
Bt cotton field trials
Backcross to local varietals
Bt cotton released to farmers
Bt Cotton Timeline in Burkina Faso
2003 2006 2008 2013 2015 2016
Bt cotton field trials
Backcross to local varietals
Bt cotton released to farmers
70% of total production is Bt cotton
Bt Cotton Timeline in Burkina Faso
2003 2006 2008 2013 2015 2016
Bt cotton field trials
Backcross to local varietals
Bt cotton released to farmers
70% of total production is Bt cotton
Begin phase-out of Bt cotton
Bt Cotton Timeline in Burkina Faso
2003 2006 2008 2013 2015 2016
Bt cotton field trials
Backcross to local varietals
Bt cotton released to farmers
70% of total production is Bt cotton
Begin phase-out of Bt cotton
100% of cotton conventional
Quality = Burkina Faso’s comparative advantage • Long fibers • High fiber efficiency (ginning ratio)
Product of intentional breeding program • French colonial origins; led to publicly funded, state-led efforts • Multiple desired outcomes
Problems with quality
Burkinabè officials noticed declines in both staple length and ginning ratiosduring the first years of commercial release.31 Monsanto officials were scep-tical, suggesting that these initial declines in staple length and ginningratios were due to exceptional water stress and other climatological varia-tions.32 But this deterioration in ginning ratios and staple length persistedover time. Reports from Burkinabè officials, which were corroborated by
Figure 1. Ginning ratios in three African countries, 1980–2007Source: David L. Tschirley, Colin Poulton, and Patrick Labaste, ‘Organization andperformance of cotton sectors in Africa: Learning from reform experience’ (World Bank,Washington, DC, 2009), pp. 180–1.
31. Brian Dowd-Uribe, Engineered outcomes: The state and agricultural reform in Burkina Faso(University of California, PhD thesis, 2011); Interview, cotton company official.32. The Burkinabè cultivars in use were known to exhibit variance in ginning ratios due toenvironmental considerations. Dominique Dessauw and Bernard Hau, ‘Cotton breeding inFrench-speaking Africa: Milestones and prospects’, paper presented at the World CottonResearch Conference 4 (Omnipress, Lubbock, TX, 2008).
8 AFRICANAFFAIRS
at University of San Francisco on January 13, 2016
http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org/D
ownloaded from
Lint Quality
Bt Cotton and Poor Lint Quality
Shorter fibres • 1/32 inch shorter • In 2013, only 33% of total cotton fibre was classed as high quality;
• Down from 80% in 2005
Lower cotton fiber efficiency • Conventional varietals = 42% • Bt varietals = approximately 40%
The new Bt varietals retained the lint quality characteristics of its Bt parent, NOT its Burkinabe parent
Burkina Faso, Bt Cotton, Farmer Choice
Producers
Cotton Companies
Seeds and Inputs on Credit
Cotton
Burkina Faso’s cotton companies phase-out Bt cotton (2015) • Sue Monsanto for $84 million USD • BUT, many farmers wish to continue growing Bt cotton
BUT: Farmers lack choice of seed varietal
Vertically Integrated Cotton Sector • Companies operate regional
monopolies • Control all seed distribution, input
provisioning, cotton purchase and ginning
• Allows for stable credit; facilitates Bt cotton adoption
• Improvement from South Africa
Burkina Faso’s cotton sector
Farmer Prices to Grow Cotton (per Hectare in US Dollars)
Cotton type Seed Insecticide Total
Bt cotton $60 $20 $80
Conventional cotton
$2 $60 $62
Burkina Faso, Bt Cotton, Yields and Labor
Some research points to yield and profit benefits of Bt cotton • Higher seed costs • Reduced pesticide usage • Less pest damage • Less labor • Hectare-based pricing
22 % increase in yields and 51% increase in profits for an ‘average’ farming household with 3 hectares
• BUT: derived from comparisons with ‘refugia’ (Glenn Stone)
Farmers principally desire Bt cotton due to labor savings; unclear yield or profit advantage
Burkina Faso, Bt Cotton, Conclusions
Private financing played large role in Bt cotton failure • Rush to market • Altered broad public breeding effort to singular focus – pest resistance
Reveals lack of farmer power in cotton sector • No farmer input in GM crop approval, reversal or breeding program
Limited scope of GM crop analyses • Little is know about the suite of impacts of GM crops • Pattern: Quick judgment of success; use of narrow metrics
Institutions matter: Vertical integration attracted GM crop investment • Credit facilitated adoption • Concentrated power = abrupt phase-out
Issues with GM Crop Evaluations
Embeddedness: GM crops are part of larger social and ecological contexts profoundly affecting outcomes
Social contexts mediate outcomes: E.g., vertically integrated sectors • Facilitate credit and adoption • Forestalled farmer input and desires
Narrow indicators • Average yield and profits • Neglect differential impacts
Lack of longer time horizons • Secondary pest and pest resistance • Unintended consequences
Social and Agro-ecological Dimensions
- Mediate Outcomes - Differential Impacts
Farm-Gate - Average
Yield -Average
Profit High politicization and private investment impedes the study of GM crops
Issues with GM Crop Evaluations
Counterfactual: How to isolate the effects of the GM crop?
Selection bias • GM crops adopters = more ‘productive’ farmers • Leads to ‘productive’ bias of GM crop analyses
Cultivation bias • Extra care given to GM crops
Double Counterfactual • GM crop interventions are not compared with other
interventions to boost yields and profits • E.g. Integrated pest and plant management techniques
Issues with GM Crop Evaluations
Silver Bullet - GM crops? • Proponents and Opponents agree no silver bullet
Silver Bullet Paradox • BUT: implemented in isolation, as if they were a silver bullet
Concentration of human resources and both public and private funds on GM crop interventions
Highly particular outcomes of GM crops depending on specific social and agro-ecological contexts • Requires multi-year, multi-metric, integrative, multi-
disciplinary studies
• Need greater focus on differentiated outcomes
Conclusions
Private investment in GM crops has significant downside • Desire for quick return • Limits farmer input • Concentrates public resources to detriment of other efforts • Concentrates power in the hands of fewer decision-makers
Acknowledgements
Questions? Comments:
Brian Dowd-Uribe University of San Francisco
Not possible without the support of many colleagues, foremost among them: • Hamadou Diallo • Ousmane Ouedraeogo • Andre Domboue
References • Bassett, T. (2001). A peasant cotton revolution. Oxford University Press.
• Bingen, J. ‘Cotton in West Africa, a question of quality’, in Jim Bingen and Lawrence Busch (eds), Agricultural standards: The shape of the global food and fibre system (Springer, Dordrecht, 2006), pp. 7–8.
• Dowd-Uribe, B. (2016): GMOs and poverty: definitions, methods and the silver bullet paradox, Canadian Journal of Development Studies / Revue canadienne d'études du développement
• Dowd-Uribe, B., (2014). ‘Engineering yields and inequality? How institutions and agro- ecology shape Bt cotton outcomes in Burkina Faso’, Geoforum 53 (2014), pp. 161–71.
• Dowd-Uribe B. and Schnurr M, (2016), Briefing: Burkina Faso’s Reversal on Genetically Modified Cotton and the Implication for Africa, African Affairs 115(458): 162-172.
• Ecobank (2015), ‘Middle Africa briefing note, soft commodities, cotton, 12 June 2015.
• Estur, G., (2008). ‘Quality and marketing of cotton lint in Africa.’ Africa Working Paper Series #121.
• Schwartz, A. ‘L’évolution de l’agriculture en zone cotonnière dans l’Ouest du Burkina Faso’. In Jean-Claude Devèze (ed), Défis Agricoles Africains (Karthala, Paris, 2008), pp. 153–172.
• Traoré O., Denys S., Vitale J., Traoré K., and K. Bazoumana, ‘Testing the efficacy and economic potential of Bollgard II under Burkina Faso cropping conditions’, Journal of Cotton Science 12: 87–98.
• Vitale J., Glick, H., Greenplate, J., Abdennadher, M., and O Traoré (2008), ‘Second-generation Bt cotton field trials in Burkina Faso: Analyzing the potential benefits to West African farmers’, Crop Science 48(5):1958–1966.
• Vitale J., and J. Greenplate, ‘The Role of Biotechnology in sustainable agriculture of the twenty-first century: The commercial introduction of Bollgard II in Burkina Faso’. In David D. Songstad, Jerry L. Hatfield, Dwight T. Tomes (eds.) Convergence of food Security, energy security and sustainable agriculture, pp. 239-293.